 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Forums - Computer music & technology
Subject: Pulsar is realy good??
Viewing all 53 messages - View by pages of 10: 1 2 3 4 5 6
Original Message 1/53 01-Jan-99 @ 07:11 PM - Pulsar is realy good??
The Pulsar price is euivalent with the card?
Message 2/53 03-Jan-99 @ 12:00 AM - RE: Pulsar is realy good??
It depends on what you want to do. I mean if you just need hard disc recording then probably something like Gina would be better. Pulsar is good for its synths and sample players. And the open platform for further expansion.
Message 3/53 03-Jan-99 @ 08:09 AM - RE: Pulsar is realy good??
Hi O Anonymous Ones:
It is quite true - _any_ product can be said to be appropriate as individula needs dictate or
demand. That's motherhood - pretty hard to disagree with.
In large part, you can look historically and see many products designed fundamentally around a
sole aspect or purpose - and that is not necessarily a bad thing given what technology has had to
offer thus far. But, it is not only a matter of tehnology's advances, but of advances in approach and
thinking. Even as technology affords us new methods and tools, it is more often than not to find
products designed to address a "single function".
"MIDI Workstations" are even this to an extent - though their manufacturers would suggest
otherwise. Sound source, sequencer, perhaps some signal processing - the package has not
fundamentally changed in quite a few years. Computer interfaces are another facet of this thought
pattern.
Initially, MIDI interfaces. SImple, 1 in/out hardware to accommodate the then limited software
options. Technology progresses and multi-port MIDI I/O to provide for greater software sequencer
track counts and multi-timbral sound sources. Then, professional quality audio interfaces. Stereo
at first followed by greater channel quantity options and more recently including dedicated
processors to offer even more performance options.
However, even in these recent products with additional "DSP" resources to take advantage of,
the thread remains essentially the same: minimal diversity and pre-defined functionality. The
closest to an "open" architecture has been with comparatively expensive systems utilizing
card-based multi-processor "farms" that can have a variety of popular signal processing "plug-ins"
operate on them. This whole premise though is still focused tightly around the concpet of studio
use and almost exclusively for "recording" purposes. This was the long way to get to what was said
just above.
If all you want to do is record, yup: there's a bunch of stuff available and it pretty much works - to
varying degrees. Interestingly, Pulsar does NOT include any application for the explicit purpose of
recording. Pulsar is, at this time, about everything _except_ recording - in and of itself. Like most
audio interfaces available. Face it - are you ready to consider switching to yet another recording
application environment after spending HOW LONG learning the one you currently use? Most
people aren't.
Pulsar is diverse enough that regardless of what you need to interface and why, it can probably
be employed in your system in some fashion. The most conspicuous aspect of Pulsar is the
hardware itself. Pulsar has a 20 in/20 out audio channel capability and also includes a standard
MIDI I/O/T interface as well. This PCI card has a couple of additional unique facets as well.
Four Analog Devices SHARC processors to supply resources for the included software and an
S/TDM bus connector that will permit processor and I/O expansion. Again, this is a situation
wherein the hardware is necessary for the operation of the software, but it is really the software that
offers the increased functionality and purpose of the product.
Synthesis and sample playback are, however, but a couple of the tools included with Pulsar.
Yes, they do quite a good job of it, but there are also the mixing (signal routing) and signal
processing portions of the software. Whether you are mixing and routing internal, Pulsar generated
sounds and effects or introducing external "live" signals or effects processing or bringing in disk-
based pre-recorded tracks, Pulsar can serve as a hub for the entire netweork of your studio.
And this is simply the start. Today, you use the recording application that you are most
comfortable with or suits your needs and purpose. Tomorrow, it is quite possible that Creamware
will change your expectations of what a recording environment is as well. One over-riding premise
with Pulsar and SCOPE is the ability to share ones working environment, not simply the
composition itself. In this fashion you are able to share with a collaborator, for instance, not only
the MIDI and audio "tracks" youhave created but the entire "studio" as well so that you are truly
working with exactly the same palette. There is nothing else out there offering this kind of
potential. Period. And, especially starting at the price of a Pulsar.
You can certainly get into "recording" for remarkably little today. A couple hundred bucks for a pro-quality sequencer, (or maybe even try some shareware,) and a few hundred dollars for some audio interface and you're good to go. RIght? It might be all you need - today. Pulsar is thinking a little bit farther down the road than just today.
Best of Luck!!
Jeff White
White Noise Marketing
http://www.whitenoisemarketing.com
It is quite true - _any_ product can be said to be appropriate as individula needs dictate or
demand. That's motherhood - pretty hard to disagree with.
In large part, you can look historically and see many products designed fundamentally around a
sole aspect or purpose - and that is not necessarily a bad thing given what technology has had to
offer thus far. But, it is not only a matter of tehnology's advances, but of advances in approach and
thinking. Even as technology affords us new methods and tools, it is more often than not to find
products designed to address a "single function".
"MIDI Workstations" are even this to an extent - though their manufacturers would suggest
otherwise. Sound source, sequencer, perhaps some signal processing - the package has not
fundamentally changed in quite a few years. Computer interfaces are another facet of this thought
pattern.
Initially, MIDI interfaces. SImple, 1 in/out hardware to accommodate the then limited software
options. Technology progresses and multi-port MIDI I/O to provide for greater software sequencer
track counts and multi-timbral sound sources. Then, professional quality audio interfaces. Stereo
at first followed by greater channel quantity options and more recently including dedicated
processors to offer even more performance options.
However, even in these recent products with additional "DSP" resources to take advantage of,
the thread remains essentially the same: minimal diversity and pre-defined functionality. The
closest to an "open" architecture has been with comparatively expensive systems utilizing
card-based multi-processor "farms" that can have a variety of popular signal processing "plug-ins"
operate on them. This whole premise though is still focused tightly around the concpet of studio
use and almost exclusively for "recording" purposes. This was the long way to get to what was said
just above.
If all you want to do is record, yup: there's a bunch of stuff available and it pretty much works - to
varying degrees. Interestingly, Pulsar does NOT include any application for the explicit purpose of
recording. Pulsar is, at this time, about everything _except_ recording - in and of itself. Like most
audio interfaces available. Face it - are you ready to consider switching to yet another recording
application environment after spending HOW LONG learning the one you currently use? Most
people aren't.
Pulsar is diverse enough that regardless of what you need to interface and why, it can probably
be employed in your system in some fashion. The most conspicuous aspect of Pulsar is the
hardware itself. Pulsar has a 20 in/20 out audio channel capability and also includes a standard
MIDI I/O/T interface as well. This PCI card has a couple of additional unique facets as well.
Four Analog Devices SHARC processors to supply resources for the included software and an
S/TDM bus connector that will permit processor and I/O expansion. Again, this is a situation
wherein the hardware is necessary for the operation of the software, but it is really the software that
offers the increased functionality and purpose of the product.
Synthesis and sample playback are, however, but a couple of the tools included with Pulsar.
Yes, they do quite a good job of it, but there are also the mixing (signal routing) and signal
processing portions of the software. Whether you are mixing and routing internal, Pulsar generated
sounds and effects or introducing external "live" signals or effects processing or bringing in disk-
based pre-recorded tracks, Pulsar can serve as a hub for the entire netweork of your studio.
And this is simply the start. Today, you use the recording application that you are most
comfortable with or suits your needs and purpose. Tomorrow, it is quite possible that Creamware
will change your expectations of what a recording environment is as well. One over-riding premise
with Pulsar and SCOPE is the ability to share ones working environment, not simply the
composition itself. In this fashion you are able to share with a collaborator, for instance, not only
the MIDI and audio "tracks" youhave created but the entire "studio" as well so that you are truly
working with exactly the same palette. There is nothing else out there offering this kind of
potential. Period. And, especially starting at the price of a Pulsar.
You can certainly get into "recording" for remarkably little today. A couple hundred bucks for a pro-quality sequencer, (or maybe even try some shareware,) and a few hundred dollars for some audio interface and you're good to go. RIght? It might be all you need - today. Pulsar is thinking a little bit farther down the road than just today.
Best of Luck!!
Jeff White
White Noise Marketing
http://www.whitenoisemarketing.com
Message 4/53 04-Jan-99 @ 05:13 AM - RE: Pulsar is realy good??
Jeff-
Do you really think it's appropriate to be useing the Dancetech chat rooms for free advertiseing?
Do you really think it's appropriate to be useing the Dancetech chat rooms for free advertiseing?
Message 5/53 04-Jan-99 @ 04:33 PM - RE: Pulsar is realy good??
TO WHITE NOISE MARKETING DUDE:
Spare us the long winded history of sound cards and give us some facts. Have you actually used Pulsar, or are you reading from the Creamware brochure?
Tell us what the damn thing can do from your own personal experience, not from what they tell you it can do. When you do that, come back here. Until then, well.....
Mr. Realist
Spare us the long winded history of sound cards and give us some facts. Have you actually used Pulsar, or are you reading from the Creamware brochure?
Tell us what the damn thing can do from your own personal experience, not from what they tell you it can do. When you do that, come back here. Until then, well.....
Mr. Realist
Message 6/53 04-Jan-99 @ 08:53 PM - RE: Pulsar is realy good??
Hi Astro:
I believed I was responding to a rather broad question. The first anonymous respondant had,
in typical Internet fashion, provided what could arguably be construed as a response - but as is
all too common one that it is ambiguous and lacking genuine information for the person who
began the inquiry.
I make no effort to hide who I am, or my affiliations. But I do try to answer questions
accurately and as completely as is practical. I did not initiate the thread - I merely responded to
it. As it happens, I was invited to this forum by someone who had seen my offerings elsewhere
and who also knew that there was an increasing amount of discussion here about Pulsar.
Apparently they seemed to think that I might be able to contribute something of use. Since
you cannot buy anything from me in the first place and most of you are likely to be outside the
area containing Dealers I do service, there is very little for me to gain or benefit from personally
by offering participation here. But, I know there are those who just love any chance to complain
and see the Internet as much as their little mouthpiece as those they claim to abuse it otherwise.
(The last remark was intended more for SirRealist than you, Astro. Your question was cordial.)
As to experience with the product, you betcha, Babe. Whaddya wanna know? That wasn't
the question that I was originally answering, but if you would seriously like an overview of stuff
that I personally have done, you're more than welcome to it.
If you look back up there, you see the question was whether or not it was believed the price
and the performance reflected each other. Not what those performances were in any given
scenario.
Now, in order to illustrate just what any might consider "worthy" of the prce, some examples
must be given, no? Not everyone out there apparently enjoys the depth of experience you must
hold and might appreciate a little comparative background. It is sometimes necessary to target
the least common denominator. Some people will find the information useful, some will find
that they have already lived through those experiences and wish for new ones. But, _everyone_
must start somewhere.
Some may consider some, (okay, most,) of my responses wordy, but I don't believe it is fair to give a 2-bit response to a 24-bit question. If you would be more comfortable emailing questions rather than having them posted here, that is why I included my address. I can also inlcude screen-shots of various projects composed with Pulsar to give a better feel for what it is actually doing.
If, SirReality, your objective is simply to harrass, then you've picked a poor candidate. My skin
is pretty thick and there is really little you can say that justifies your rants or shouting. I was trying
to answer the person's question. I try to do it thoroughly, rather than provide half-answers which
are like half-truths. I try to lend a little perspective. If someone wants performance details, they
can contact me - or Creamware - or they can subscribe to the pulsar-dsp@usa.net mailing list
which is not operated by Creamware but by a User of a Yamaha DS-2416 who thought it would
be good to have a forum comparing the two products. The discussions are largely about Pulsar
as there is a separate list just for Yamaha Users, but occasionally people reference the DSP
Factory products as well.
Best of Luck and Happy New Year!!
Jeff White White Noise Marketing http://www.whitenoisemarketing.com
I believed I was responding to a rather broad question. The first anonymous respondant had,
in typical Internet fashion, provided what could arguably be construed as a response - but as is
all too common one that it is ambiguous and lacking genuine information for the person who
began the inquiry.
I make no effort to hide who I am, or my affiliations. But I do try to answer questions
accurately and as completely as is practical. I did not initiate the thread - I merely responded to
it. As it happens, I was invited to this forum by someone who had seen my offerings elsewhere
and who also knew that there was an increasing amount of discussion here about Pulsar.
Apparently they seemed to think that I might be able to contribute something of use. Since
you cannot buy anything from me in the first place and most of you are likely to be outside the
area containing Dealers I do service, there is very little for me to gain or benefit from personally
by offering participation here. But, I know there are those who just love any chance to complain
and see the Internet as much as their little mouthpiece as those they claim to abuse it otherwise.
(The last remark was intended more for SirRealist than you, Astro. Your question was cordial.)
As to experience with the product, you betcha, Babe. Whaddya wanna know? That wasn't
the question that I was originally answering, but if you would seriously like an overview of stuff
that I personally have done, you're more than welcome to it.
If you look back up there, you see the question was whether or not it was believed the price
and the performance reflected each other. Not what those performances were in any given
scenario.
Now, in order to illustrate just what any might consider "worthy" of the prce, some examples
must be given, no? Not everyone out there apparently enjoys the depth of experience you must
hold and might appreciate a little comparative background. It is sometimes necessary to target
the least common denominator. Some people will find the information useful, some will find
that they have already lived through those experiences and wish for new ones. But, _everyone_
must start somewhere.
Some may consider some, (okay, most,) of my responses wordy, but I don't believe it is fair to give a 2-bit response to a 24-bit question. If you would be more comfortable emailing questions rather than having them posted here, that is why I included my address. I can also inlcude screen-shots of various projects composed with Pulsar to give a better feel for what it is actually doing.
If, SirReality, your objective is simply to harrass, then you've picked a poor candidate. My skin
is pretty thick and there is really little you can say that justifies your rants or shouting. I was trying
to answer the person's question. I try to do it thoroughly, rather than provide half-answers which
are like half-truths. I try to lend a little perspective. If someone wants performance details, they
can contact me - or Creamware - or they can subscribe to the pulsar-dsp@usa.net mailing list
which is not operated by Creamware but by a User of a Yamaha DS-2416 who thought it would
be good to have a forum comparing the two products. The discussions are largely about Pulsar
as there is a separate list just for Yamaha Users, but occasionally people reference the DSP
Factory products as well.
Best of Luck and Happy New Year!!
Jeff White White Noise Marketing http://www.whitenoisemarketing.com
Message 7/53 04-Jan-99 @ 09:52 PM - What???
Mr White Noise:
We all know that the pulsar has all this dsp power, mixer, blender, coffee maker, etc...No need to reiterate the specs or features.
What the common people want is practical info (how many fx before the dsp power folds up, how well it works with certain softwares, what are the problems, expecially bugs, and there are always some of those, arent' there?)
Spare us the articulate responses that beat around the bush. We want the beef. Sure there are beginners here, but they would benefit just as well from in depth technical shit (pardon my callous language), as it would motivate them to learn on their own!!
So, with this said, how about some experiences you've had with pulsar?
Mr Realist.
We all know that the pulsar has all this dsp power, mixer, blender, coffee maker, etc...No need to reiterate the specs or features.
What the common people want is practical info (how many fx before the dsp power folds up, how well it works with certain softwares, what are the problems, expecially bugs, and there are always some of those, arent' there?)
Spare us the articulate responses that beat around the bush. We want the beef. Sure there are beginners here, but they would benefit just as well from in depth technical shit (pardon my callous language), as it would motivate them to learn on their own!!
So, with this said, how about some experiences you've had with pulsar?
Mr Realist.
Message 8/53 04-Jan-99 @ 10:38 PM - RE: Pulsar is realy good??
Well, after all the above here comes an actual Pulsar user, albeit only for a short time. As a preamble, I'd like to say I've been involved with EM/CM for about ten years now. I studied in the EM department at Oberlin Conservatory where computer music is fairly thoroughly thrust down your throat. At the time, I thought there were possibilities for purely computer based music, but the hardware/software hadn't caught up. I have been converted.
Not being aware of specific questions people have I'll say this much, Pulsar performs as promissed. It's one of the first cards I've installed that was up and running right away, and this in a system with precious little IRQ room available (and it does require one). I put in the card, installed the software and everything was working, a big plus for a system of this complexity. The interface is cool, very intuitive. It does take a few seconds for the DSPs to register new devices when you add them to a project, but I find this only very mildly annoying, not really at all but there are nit-pickers.
The DSP can be overloaded, but it takes a good deal of stacking devices. Multiple synths with lots of voices (you can specify the number of voices for each synth device) can eat up power pretty fast, but that's to be expected. On the other hand, you can stack up a lot of sampled voices as the sample players are pretty DSP friendly. The synths all sound great. The miniscope can't match a real mini because of certain inherent digital characteristics (no one wants to program them to drift, although that would be cool), but in a mix it can definitely hold it's own. The programmability is nice, as are the 5 LFO sources (all sine alas). The Bluesynth is awsome, great sounds and very versatile and the EZ while not really sounding convincingly like a TB to me still has a great pallete. You can make pretty complex modular instruments as well. Overall I'd rate the sound quality of the synths as excellent.
The mixers are very intuitive (as is everything except a couple aspects of the modular) and sound great, same goes for the effects. My first quibble is with delay times. Although the stereo and cross delays sound great, the max of 683 milliseconds seems a little short to me. The phaser and chorus sound pretty damn good and I'd say that once the reverb is available (they're holding it back until it "sounds right" which considering overall sonic quality leaves me in anticipation) the pulsar will make an excellent efx unit, being able to chain up the individual effects any way you like.
The software won't let you set up feedback loops, this is also a pet peave of mine, but I can understand the reasoning behind it. Nothing'll crash a processor faster than a bit of recursion. I have yet to test the connection between Pulsar and Cakewalk 8.0, been to busy playing with the various synths (plus I'm still waiting for my A16), but everything else has gone pretty smothly.
My last complaint is abt. the manual. I really hate the current trend away from having paper manuals, especially with software as complex as Pulsar. I'll be printing mine out on the color at work, but not everyone has the option. I'd pay a little extra for a nice bound manual, but oh well.
Anyway, I'd say that the variety of features available with Pulsar makes it one of the best price/performance cards out there. Combine it with some external AD/DA and you may be able to do as I am planning to do, replace your hardware mixer. Any specific questions, feel free to email me.
Not being aware of specific questions people have I'll say this much, Pulsar performs as promissed. It's one of the first cards I've installed that was up and running right away, and this in a system with precious little IRQ room available (and it does require one). I put in the card, installed the software and everything was working, a big plus for a system of this complexity. The interface is cool, very intuitive. It does take a few seconds for the DSPs to register new devices when you add them to a project, but I find this only very mildly annoying, not really at all but there are nit-pickers.
The DSP can be overloaded, but it takes a good deal of stacking devices. Multiple synths with lots of voices (you can specify the number of voices for each synth device) can eat up power pretty fast, but that's to be expected. On the other hand, you can stack up a lot of sampled voices as the sample players are pretty DSP friendly. The synths all sound great. The miniscope can't match a real mini because of certain inherent digital characteristics (no one wants to program them to drift, although that would be cool), but in a mix it can definitely hold it's own. The programmability is nice, as are the 5 LFO sources (all sine alas). The Bluesynth is awsome, great sounds and very versatile and the EZ while not really sounding convincingly like a TB to me still has a great pallete. You can make pretty complex modular instruments as well. Overall I'd rate the sound quality of the synths as excellent.
The mixers are very intuitive (as is everything except a couple aspects of the modular) and sound great, same goes for the effects. My first quibble is with delay times. Although the stereo and cross delays sound great, the max of 683 milliseconds seems a little short to me. The phaser and chorus sound pretty damn good and I'd say that once the reverb is available (they're holding it back until it "sounds right" which considering overall sonic quality leaves me in anticipation) the pulsar will make an excellent efx unit, being able to chain up the individual effects any way you like.
The software won't let you set up feedback loops, this is also a pet peave of mine, but I can understand the reasoning behind it. Nothing'll crash a processor faster than a bit of recursion. I have yet to test the connection between Pulsar and Cakewalk 8.0, been to busy playing with the various synths (plus I'm still waiting for my A16), but everything else has gone pretty smothly.
My last complaint is abt. the manual. I really hate the current trend away from having paper manuals, especially with software as complex as Pulsar. I'll be printing mine out on the color at work, but not everyone has the option. I'd pay a little extra for a nice bound manual, but oh well.
Anyway, I'd say that the variety of features available with Pulsar makes it one of the best price/performance cards out there. Combine it with some external AD/DA and you may be able to do as I am planning to do, replace your hardware mixer. Any specific questions, feel free to email me.
Message 9/53 04-Jan-99 @ 11:05 PM - RE: Pulsar is realy good??
Yes, the manual is probably the worst part. For such a complex system Creamware gives just a brief description on everything. They should offer a tutorial CD or something like that with it. For instance a simple task like choosing the number of channels for its dynamixer, for asio source, etc., I can't do that, and manual won't tell me how.As I put my Pulsar in place of AVM Apex soundcard, it was like jumping from a bike onto a spaceship. Takes some time to learn the controls. As I've previously written in the Creamware Pulsar thread, I had problems running it with Cubase. Now it works, although some questions are still left, some differences compared with the the installation guide. Will come back when I learn more. I have to work using the trial and error method - not the fastest one, really. I also have read someone complaining about instability of sample players - they were said to cause crashes sooner or later. Haven't noticed that. Given my really slow machine it's pretty stable, have had just few hangs.
Message 10/53 05-Jan-99 @ 06:04 PM - RE: Pulsar is realy good??
Just found out how to change that channel number. It's like everything with this card, as soon as you get the idea, it makes you smile how easy and simple it is.
Message 11/53 05-Jan-99 @ 08:32 PM - RE: Pulsar is realy good??
Mr Realist:
I hope you won't mind if I don't add to those End User comments offered Ted and Gedas.
I think that they did a pretty good job of painting User perspectives and I would have to ex-
pect their words to be given more validity than someone involved with the company, however
indirectly, even though I might still be a User as well.
If it happens that there are more questions people would like answered, I am happy to try to
do so. I don't claim to own and use every piece of software and hardware out there so there
might be some gaps in my knowledge, but I am fairly up to date on what is going on with
Creamware's stuff.
Sorry you feel I was trying to doubletalk you and not answer. I am not known for being shy -
or even evasive. But I do like to have a clear idea of what it is I am supposed to discuss before
I go running further off at the mouth. ;o)
Best of Luck!!
Jeff White President White Noise Marketing http://www.whitenoisemarketing.com
(888) 666-6434
I hope you won't mind if I don't add to those End User comments offered Ted and Gedas.
I think that they did a pretty good job of painting User perspectives and I would have to ex-
pect their words to be given more validity than someone involved with the company, however
indirectly, even though I might still be a User as well.
If it happens that there are more questions people would like answered, I am happy to try to
do so. I don't claim to own and use every piece of software and hardware out there so there
might be some gaps in my knowledge, but I am fairly up to date on what is going on with
Creamware's stuff.
Sorry you feel I was trying to doubletalk you and not answer. I am not known for being shy -
or even evasive. But I do like to have a clear idea of what it is I am supposed to discuss before
I go running further off at the mouth. ;o)
Best of Luck!!
Jeff White President White Noise Marketing http://www.whitenoisemarketing.com
(888) 666-6434
Message 12/53 05-Jan-99 @ 09:00 PM - RE: Pulsar is realy good??
This noise-guy sure uses good english and has lots of verbal talent useful in the marketing sector. But would you buy anything from him?
I wouldn't. Why? The more you convince the less convinced I get. That's why. He speaks way too much and about things nobodys propably even interested in.
Ok, Pulsar is propably one of the finest pieces of gear out there, but you noise-fella could learn to use some paragraphs in your text. Just about same way as you are selling something to someone face-to-face. You just can't speak to your clients hours and hours without letting them to open their mouth every once in a while.
I was just wondering how you managed to piss me off... Sorry.
I wouldn't. Why? The more you convince the less convinced I get. That's why. He speaks way too much and about things nobodys propably even interested in.
Ok, Pulsar is propably one of the finest pieces of gear out there, but you noise-fella could learn to use some paragraphs in your text. Just about same way as you are selling something to someone face-to-face. You just can't speak to your clients hours and hours without letting them to open their mouth every once in a while.
I was just wondering how you managed to piss me off... Sorry.
Message 13/53 05-Jan-99 @ 09:24 PM - RE: Pulsar is realy good??
OK man, what would you suggest? The so-called "noise guy" is providing those who are interested with all kinds of information on the subject. Personnaly I prefer to be informed on the new appearing stuff instead of trying to guess on it. Input from the "sellers" or whatever you call them is absolutely necessary. Eventually the choice is always after you - buy it or not. He provided details that convinced me and I bought it. Still happy. My choice.
Message 14/53 05-Jan-99 @ 09:27 PM - Talk is cheap
To Mr. White Noise:
It's getting very apparent here that you are using this website as a free form of advertising, which I find ethically vile. You said you are a user of the card, and you've had chances to go into detail about it, but for some reason you are not!!! Hmmmm......
All of your posts are thinnly veiled salesman talk with out much substance or meaningful to the people in the trenches. I've reread your novelistic posts, and I still can't figure out what your points are, if there are any!!
And it's not just me, either, as a few others have voiced their displeasure. Give us a break!! This is a USERS forum, not an advertising forum.
Mr Realist
It's getting very apparent here that you are using this website as a free form of advertising, which I find ethically vile. You said you are a user of the card, and you've had chances to go into detail about it, but for some reason you are not!!! Hmmmm......
All of your posts are thinnly veiled salesman talk with out much substance or meaningful to the people in the trenches. I've reread your novelistic posts, and I still can't figure out what your points are, if there are any!!
And it's not just me, either, as a few others have voiced their displeasure. Give us a break!! This is a USERS forum, not an advertising forum.
Mr Realist
Message 15/53 05-Jan-99 @ 11:34 PM - GET OUT OF HERE
Yes, I agree. This marketing guy spewing forth his verbiage is just stupid. "Painting user perspectives"? Is this a forum or a english scholar class?
The idea of marketing is to fool people into buying your product. Well, we're too stoopid here to understand your heady words, so it ain't workin'!!!
The idea of marketing is to fool people into buying your product. Well, we're too stoopid here to understand your heady words, so it ain't workin'!!!
Message 16/53 05-Jan-99 @ 11:34 PM - GET OUT OF HERE
Yes, I agree. This marketing guy spewing forth his verbiage is just stupid. "Painting user perspectives"? Is this a forum or a english scholar class?
The idea of marketing is to fool people into buying your product. Well, we're too stoopid here to understand your heady words, so it ain't workin'!!!
The idea of marketing is to fool people into buying your product. Well, we're too stoopid here to understand your heady words, so it ain't workin'!!!
Message 17/53 06-Jan-99 @ 05:04 AM - RE: Pulsar is realy good??
Tsk Tsk Tsk... tew bad a cupple of yew think the onlee weigh to bee troothful is tu akt dum.
To the others, I have been trying to figure out the formatting in this forum for some time -
obviously unsuccessfully. Maybe I am the dumb one after all. ;o) But it's gonna take a lot
more than a couple of self-righteous and textually indignant mal-contents spewing their own
verbage. You don't own this place any more than I do. That you see what I am doing here as
advertising is your own ignorance showing through.
I have tried, and shall continue, to provide assistance for those requesting it. I haven't come in here and started threads - I have responded to questions. I think you might need to do a little
re-evaluation of yourselves.
As for you, Sir Reality: you want info, Babe, you got it! (Though I'll have to make sure you're
able to digest it adequately as it appears you are unable or unwilling to go acquire that simple information from the Creamware website. But I'll give it a shot just for you, Snookums, since you begged so incessantly.)
And to anyone else who who would condemn another's speech patterns,
why don't you go back to school - and pay attention this time.
-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-
Hardware:
-----PCI Card (3/4-sized)
-----Hi Speed S/TDM bus connector
-----I/O Compliment:
-------20 audio channels in, 20 audio channels out
----------Stereo analog on RCA connectors - 20-bit AD/DA
----------Coaxial S/PDIF
----------2 x ADAT OD/i (total of 16 channels)
-------MIDI In/Out/Thru
-------***Option: Pulsar Plus (not yet released) XLR analog and AES/EBU instead of S/PDIF
-----4 x 60MHz Analog Devices SHARC Processors (among fastest floating point available)
So, that's the hardware. Big whoop, right? What good is it? Well, it runs the software - that's what!
Software:
-----All software runs on the SHARC processors - not the host system.
-----Pulsar, therefore, is platform independent. It requires only power from the PCI bus and exploits whatever other system resources available, (RAM, storage retrieval, etc...)
-----Software included does not "do" HDR - it does everything except that. You continue using YOUR favorite recording software and don't have to switch to Creamware's.
-----Pulsar software DOES include:
-------Multiple Mixer variations
----------DynaMixer
---------------variable channel count (max 16) line mixer
----------BigMixer
---------------32 input channels - w/ Connected component display, Input Gain and Phase control, 6 auxes (pre/post assignable), Monitor Bus with pan and level (pre/post assignable), 4 inserts (pre/post assignable), 4-band Parametric EQ (pre/post assignable), Mute Button, Solo (in place) button, Mute Group (6) "text fader", 2 x Bus Assignment "text faders", Channel Fader, Channel Meter, Pre-fade Listen button, Mix bus assignment button, Fader/Meter Numeric displays.
---------------6 Stereo Aux Returns
---------------Talkback Input
---------------Control Room Outputs
---------------Main Mix Outputs
---------------Stereo Monitor Bus Outputs
---------------6 Mono Aux Send Masters
---------------16 Record Bus Outputs - w/ separate Output Faders, meters, and pan controls.
----------_____Mixer - oh yeah, that one hasn't been announced yet, I'm not supposed to say anything.
-------Synthesis
----------MiniSCOPE - faithful reproduction of classic 3-Oscillator Monophonic Synth, except the oscillators don't drift so I guess it sucks after all, huh? Oh yeah, it's also programmable, polyphonic, and has assignable LFOs.
----------BlueSynth - Easy to Use Prophet-style sunthesizer
----------EZ-Synth - TB-303 knock-off (I don't know how close, personally - never owned one.
----------FM One - Six operators wasn't enough, this one has eight and one of the most unique UIs there is. And yes, it does all those wonderful electric piano and bell sounds. I mean, what else would you use FM for, right?
----------Modular Synths - yes, plural. Several quite different "factory-rolled", and a "starter kit" to help you "roll you own" from the over 75 and counting assorted modules. Free patch cables included - unlimited supply!
-------Sample Players
----------Two Akai S-1000 format compatible players with basic envelope functions. Loads your favorites from the very broad library - one CD-ROM included to get you started. More formats to be supported at later dates.
-------Signal Processing
----------4-pole Filter
----------Chorus
----------Compressor
----------Delay
----------EQ, 4-band parametric
----------Flanger
----------Limiter
----------Phaser
Personal Opinions:
Okay, FWIWTY, I think the synths are absolutely astounding and more than enough reason by themselves to own Pulsar. The BigMixer and the various I/O modules and routing options make this thing a stinkin' wet dream of routing. I am having so much fun playing with the possible set-ups it pains me now to have to consider working in another environment for anything.
As far as the included effects, I am spoiled by Creamware's tripleDAT processors. I'll give them that this is version 1, (v 1.1 is due at end of January - free.) The EQ works basically the same as in tripleDAT, but the control is not as fluid at the moment. The rest of the processors are "dumbed down" for the masses. The Chorus and Flanger, for instance, in tripleDAT were brilliant - in Pulsar they look much like other conventional devices. As a matter of fact, the EQs are the only processors to stay in keeping with Creamware's traditional "non-traditional" work-surface.
Sonically, the processors sound okay. They don't jump the way they did in tripleDAT, but they are certainly usable. And, perhaps the biggist benefit is that by using them CPU load is decreased making room for more exotic Direct-X or VST or whatever plug-ins to be utilized. Personally, I loathe the notion of using a MIDI sequencer as an audio production tool, so I am waiting in earnest for tripleDAT 3.0 which will permit the Pulsar to be used in that environment.
Right now, the best interaction seems to come with Cubase. Various reports come from Users of other applications - notably Cakewalk. There have been two driver updates in the 4 weeks that the product has been out with another one due around the middle of January. This 1/15/99 driver is supposed to correct known timing offset problems using the .WAV drivers. The 32 I/O for ASIO seems to work quite nicely.
I am just having too much fun playing with the synths to focus on any serious recording right now. That, and getting familiar enough with it to perform my presentations and prepare for the upcoming trade show. As some of you have graciously appreciated, I also do a fair amount of on-line correspondance - most of it appreciated for what it is: genuine attempts to assist.
Oh yeah, by the way, all of the variable controls in Pulsar - be they synth, mixer, or whatever - can be automatized. (You guys will probably harangue me on that one too, but because of so much mis0use, I finally looked it up. In "Webster's Collegiate", there is no "automated". No charge.) So, what that means is in the current v1.0, you can assign a MIDI controller to whatever it is you want to have controlled continuously by your MIDI sequencer or hardware controller. Your choice. Mix and match. Of course, MIDI is rather coarse and only has 128 values. In v1.1 the "Automizer" module will ship, (supposedly,) and permit synchronous automation of device controls without the zipper effect. There is also supposed to be a reverb effect and maybe a couple of other goodies as well.
Now, in doing what you badgered so ineloquently for, I think it is much closer to what you were accusing me of than what I had been doing previously. But, you wanted it - so you got it. I also, if you care to notice, tried to be pretty honest about my opinions and pointed out some deficiencies that are not exactly earth-crumbling but do have to be endured at present. Overall, there seems to be pretty unanimous satisfaction with the parts that are working - which is most of them. It has only been out a month. Maybe many of you would benefit from waiting until after the NAMM show at the end of January to try to get a better picture of what is, what isn't, what may be and what is sheer conjecture from most of the other players in the industry.
Do keep in mind, most people seem to post questions without return addresses here. I might be inclined to respond privately were that not the case. I am not insensitive to "netiquette" and I don't like spam any more than the next person. That, again, is why I _answer_ questions, I don't _start_ threads. Not here, anyway. I identify myself so no one can complain that I am saying what I do and trying to portray myself as a "dis-interested" party. Those of you who've voiced a problem with it, frankly - it's YOUR problem. That's the way the ball bounces. Don't wanna know - don't read. Simple. You don't see me posting off-topic in other places and since Pulsar is rather new, there simply aren't a lot of people to respond about it yet. Give it another couple of months. ;o)
In the mean time - enjoy. Life's too short to just bitch on line.
Jeff White President White Noise Marketing http://www.whitenoisemarketing.com
To the others, I have been trying to figure out the formatting in this forum for some time -
obviously unsuccessfully. Maybe I am the dumb one after all. ;o) But it's gonna take a lot
more than a couple of self-righteous and textually indignant mal-contents spewing their own
verbage. You don't own this place any more than I do. That you see what I am doing here as
advertising is your own ignorance showing through.
I have tried, and shall continue, to provide assistance for those requesting it. I haven't come in here and started threads - I have responded to questions. I think you might need to do a little
re-evaluation of yourselves.
As for you, Sir Reality: you want info, Babe, you got it! (Though I'll have to make sure you're
able to digest it adequately as it appears you are unable or unwilling to go acquire that simple information from the Creamware website. But I'll give it a shot just for you, Snookums, since you begged so incessantly.)
And to anyone else who who would condemn another's speech patterns,
why don't you go back to school - and pay attention this time.
-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-
Hardware:
-----PCI Card (3/4-sized)
-----Hi Speed S/TDM bus connector
-----I/O Compliment:
-------20 audio channels in, 20 audio channels out
----------Stereo analog on RCA connectors - 20-bit AD/DA
----------Coaxial S/PDIF
----------2 x ADAT OD/i (total of 16 channels)
-------MIDI In/Out/Thru
-------***Option: Pulsar Plus (not yet released) XLR analog and AES/EBU instead of S/PDIF
-----4 x 60MHz Analog Devices SHARC Processors (among fastest floating point available)
So, that's the hardware. Big whoop, right? What good is it? Well, it runs the software - that's what!
Software:
-----All software runs on the SHARC processors - not the host system.
-----Pulsar, therefore, is platform independent. It requires only power from the PCI bus and exploits whatever other system resources available, (RAM, storage retrieval, etc...)
-----Software included does not "do" HDR - it does everything except that. You continue using YOUR favorite recording software and don't have to switch to Creamware's.
-----Pulsar software DOES include:
-------Multiple Mixer variations
----------DynaMixer
---------------variable channel count (max 16) line mixer
----------BigMixer
---------------32 input channels - w/ Connected component display, Input Gain and Phase control, 6 auxes (pre/post assignable), Monitor Bus with pan and level (pre/post assignable), 4 inserts (pre/post assignable), 4-band Parametric EQ (pre/post assignable), Mute Button, Solo (in place) button, Mute Group (6) "text fader", 2 x Bus Assignment "text faders", Channel Fader, Channel Meter, Pre-fade Listen button, Mix bus assignment button, Fader/Meter Numeric displays.
---------------6 Stereo Aux Returns
---------------Talkback Input
---------------Control Room Outputs
---------------Main Mix Outputs
---------------Stereo Monitor Bus Outputs
---------------6 Mono Aux Send Masters
---------------16 Record Bus Outputs - w/ separate Output Faders, meters, and pan controls.
----------_____Mixer - oh yeah, that one hasn't been announced yet, I'm not supposed to say anything.
-------Synthesis
----------MiniSCOPE - faithful reproduction of classic 3-Oscillator Monophonic Synth, except the oscillators don't drift so I guess it sucks after all, huh? Oh yeah, it's also programmable, polyphonic, and has assignable LFOs.
----------BlueSynth - Easy to Use Prophet-style sunthesizer
----------EZ-Synth - TB-303 knock-off (I don't know how close, personally - never owned one.
----------FM One - Six operators wasn't enough, this one has eight and one of the most unique UIs there is. And yes, it does all those wonderful electric piano and bell sounds. I mean, what else would you use FM for, right?
----------Modular Synths - yes, plural. Several quite different "factory-rolled", and a "starter kit" to help you "roll you own" from the over 75 and counting assorted modules. Free patch cables included - unlimited supply!
-------Sample Players
----------Two Akai S-1000 format compatible players with basic envelope functions. Loads your favorites from the very broad library - one CD-ROM included to get you started. More formats to be supported at later dates.
-------Signal Processing
----------4-pole Filter
----------Chorus
----------Compressor
----------Delay
----------EQ, 4-band parametric
----------Flanger
----------Limiter
----------Phaser
Personal Opinions:
Okay, FWIWTY, I think the synths are absolutely astounding and more than enough reason by themselves to own Pulsar. The BigMixer and the various I/O modules and routing options make this thing a stinkin' wet dream of routing. I am having so much fun playing with the possible set-ups it pains me now to have to consider working in another environment for anything.
As far as the included effects, I am spoiled by Creamware's tripleDAT processors. I'll give them that this is version 1, (v 1.1 is due at end of January - free.) The EQ works basically the same as in tripleDAT, but the control is not as fluid at the moment. The rest of the processors are "dumbed down" for the masses. The Chorus and Flanger, for instance, in tripleDAT were brilliant - in Pulsar they look much like other conventional devices. As a matter of fact, the EQs are the only processors to stay in keeping with Creamware's traditional "non-traditional" work-surface.
Sonically, the processors sound okay. They don't jump the way they did in tripleDAT, but they are certainly usable. And, perhaps the biggist benefit is that by using them CPU load is decreased making room for more exotic Direct-X or VST or whatever plug-ins to be utilized. Personally, I loathe the notion of using a MIDI sequencer as an audio production tool, so I am waiting in earnest for tripleDAT 3.0 which will permit the Pulsar to be used in that environment.
Right now, the best interaction seems to come with Cubase. Various reports come from Users of other applications - notably Cakewalk. There have been two driver updates in the 4 weeks that the product has been out with another one due around the middle of January. This 1/15/99 driver is supposed to correct known timing offset problems using the .WAV drivers. The 32 I/O for ASIO seems to work quite nicely.
I am just having too much fun playing with the synths to focus on any serious recording right now. That, and getting familiar enough with it to perform my presentations and prepare for the upcoming trade show. As some of you have graciously appreciated, I also do a fair amount of on-line correspondance - most of it appreciated for what it is: genuine attempts to assist.
Oh yeah, by the way, all of the variable controls in Pulsar - be they synth, mixer, or whatever - can be automatized. (You guys will probably harangue me on that one too, but because of so much mis0use, I finally looked it up. In "Webster's Collegiate", there is no "automated". No charge.) So, what that means is in the current v1.0, you can assign a MIDI controller to whatever it is you want to have controlled continuously by your MIDI sequencer or hardware controller. Your choice. Mix and match. Of course, MIDI is rather coarse and only has 128 values. In v1.1 the "Automizer" module will ship, (supposedly,) and permit synchronous automation of device controls without the zipper effect. There is also supposed to be a reverb effect and maybe a couple of other goodies as well.
Now, in doing what you badgered so ineloquently for, I think it is much closer to what you were accusing me of than what I had been doing previously. But, you wanted it - so you got it. I also, if you care to notice, tried to be pretty honest about my opinions and pointed out some deficiencies that are not exactly earth-crumbling but do have to be endured at present. Overall, there seems to be pretty unanimous satisfaction with the parts that are working - which is most of them. It has only been out a month. Maybe many of you would benefit from waiting until after the NAMM show at the end of January to try to get a better picture of what is, what isn't, what may be and what is sheer conjecture from most of the other players in the industry.
Do keep in mind, most people seem to post questions without return addresses here. I might be inclined to respond privately were that not the case. I am not insensitive to "netiquette" and I don't like spam any more than the next person. That, again, is why I _answer_ questions, I don't _start_ threads. Not here, anyway. I identify myself so no one can complain that I am saying what I do and trying to portray myself as a "dis-interested" party. Those of you who've voiced a problem with it, frankly - it's YOUR problem. That's the way the ball bounces. Don't wanna know - don't read. Simple. You don't see me posting off-topic in other places and since Pulsar is rather new, there simply aren't a lot of people to respond about it yet. Give it another couple of months. ;o)
In the mean time - enjoy. Life's too short to just bitch on line.
Jeff White President White Noise Marketing http://www.whitenoisemarketing.com
Message 18/53 06-Jan-99 @ 04:43 PM - That's what we wanted in the first place!!
There ya go!! It took you 4 posts to spew out the working details in pulsar. Thank You. That's all we wanted. We could have avoided all the unpleansantries if you got to it in the first place!! It's good to see you saying the processors sound okay, and not great, which is the honesty that we expect in these types of forums.
Seriously though, when you use 3 or 4 long sentences to make one simple point, you start sounding like a used car salesman. If you look at the other posts, opinions and info are given straight ahead. That's more the format for this type of website.
It's great that your an intelligent, well spoken person. But it appears condesending (is that spelled right?).
How about enough of this and more dirt on the Pulsar?
Mr. Realist
Seriously though, when you use 3 or 4 long sentences to make one simple point, you start sounding like a used car salesman. If you look at the other posts, opinions and info are given straight ahead. That's more the format for this type of website.
It's great that your an intelligent, well spoken person. But it appears condesending (is that spelled right?).
How about enough of this and more dirt on the Pulsar?
Mr. Realist
Message 19/53 07-Jan-99 @ 06:00 AM - RE: Pulsar is realy good??
Yo Mistah UnRe-al:
Glad you be diggin' now, Bro. It's da bomb, eh? Oh, and yes - you did misspell condescending and no - I am not condescending. I am not going to take crap I don't earn or deserve from people who haven't the spine to even name themselves, but I will continue regardless of such self-righteous and myopic individuals to help those that do seem to appreciate honest information.
You want dirt? Well, maybe we can cut through some of da mustard by you asking some questions you feel are important. This way, useless information doesn't use up that precious bandwidth. Hmmm? However, you might have to put up with a few extra sentences here and there. IT goes with the territory. One thing I have discovered is that if you leave a question half answered, people still get upset because you forgot the other half. And, since we are talking about tecyhnical products, sometimes there is simply no way around the lengthy discussion.
Some folks feel too uptight to ask the questions privately - even though I provide an email for those needing it. *shrug* Oh well. I can only do what I can do. So, how about you kinda starting a thread here that addresses topics you think this forum will find interesting. You seem to have your finger on the pulse. Ask me what you'd like to know. I'll do my best to help out. Really.
Oh, and sorry 'bout how the specs came out. Can someone explain to me how little formatting is done on this window? It looks like it ignores certain carriage returns and spaces. Will it respond appropriately to HTML formatting? What do I gots to do to make things legible for y'all?
Best of Luck!!
Jeff White President White Noise Marketing http://www.whitenoisemarketing.com
Glad you be diggin' now, Bro. It's da bomb, eh? Oh, and yes - you did misspell condescending and no - I am not condescending. I am not going to take crap I don't earn or deserve from people who haven't the spine to even name themselves, but I will continue regardless of such self-righteous and myopic individuals to help those that do seem to appreciate honest information.
You want dirt? Well, maybe we can cut through some of da mustard by you asking some questions you feel are important. This way, useless information doesn't use up that precious bandwidth. Hmmm? However, you might have to put up with a few extra sentences here and there. IT goes with the territory. One thing I have discovered is that if you leave a question half answered, people still get upset because you forgot the other half. And, since we are talking about tecyhnical products, sometimes there is simply no way around the lengthy discussion.
Some folks feel too uptight to ask the questions privately - even though I provide an email for those needing it. *shrug* Oh well. I can only do what I can do. So, how about you kinda starting a thread here that addresses topics you think this forum will find interesting. You seem to have your finger on the pulse. Ask me what you'd like to know. I'll do my best to help out. Really.
Oh, and sorry 'bout how the specs came out. Can someone explain to me how little formatting is done on this window? It looks like it ignores certain carriage returns and spaces. Will it respond appropriately to HTML formatting? What do I gots to do to make things legible for y'all?
Best of Luck!!
Jeff White President White Noise Marketing http://www.whitenoisemarketing.com
Message 20/53 07-Jan-99 @ 09:44 AM - RE: Pulsar is realy good??
What will the approximate cost be for the controller? How soon will pulsar work w/ triple dat? I saw a used triple dat for $400 the other day, good deal? I mean, did Guitar Center blow them out for cheaper than that?
Message 21/53 07-Jan-99 @ 08:52 PM - RE: Pulsar is realy good??
Mr. White Noise,
Great. Wonderful. Have you done any recording/mixing with pulsar? People seem to love the synths, but I haven't heard anything about the converters, or any mixing stories. It's probably still early for this.
So the sample player loads samples (into memory?) from the cd rom and then can be played. Is latency a problem? Doe the cd rom that comes with it have any good drum sounds?
One thing I am very converned about is the converters, especially sound quality. Most 96k cards support that sample rate on the digital I/O only. Do the pulsar converters do 96k? Also, will the converters dither from 20to 16 bits to cubase, or are the last four bits truncated?
I have an Intel 233mmx with 80 mgs ram. Can I run this beast with out too many problems? Granted, I won't have a lot of fx, but can I operate pulsar and cubase together without massive slowdowns?
The "all-in-one" solution usually means compromise in certain areas. In what area does pulsar leave a little to be desired (and be honest here, now...)?
Any answers are appreciated.
Mr. Realist
Great. Wonderful. Have you done any recording/mixing with pulsar? People seem to love the synths, but I haven't heard anything about the converters, or any mixing stories. It's probably still early for this.
So the sample player loads samples (into memory?) from the cd rom and then can be played. Is latency a problem? Doe the cd rom that comes with it have any good drum sounds?
One thing I am very converned about is the converters, especially sound quality. Most 96k cards support that sample rate on the digital I/O only. Do the pulsar converters do 96k? Also, will the converters dither from 20to 16 bits to cubase, or are the last four bits truncated?
I have an Intel 233mmx with 80 mgs ram. Can I run this beast with out too many problems? Granted, I won't have a lot of fx, but can I operate pulsar and cubase together without massive slowdowns?
The "all-in-one" solution usually means compromise in certain areas. In what area does pulsar leave a little to be desired (and be honest here, now...)?
Any answers are appreciated.
Mr. Realist
Message 22/53 08-Jan-99 @ 11:15 PM - RE: Pulsar is realy good??
In regards to the separate control fader, I am in the process of building a universal knob box and would rather use that to control pulsar (it has 40 knobs). I agree, though, that midi isn't precise enough and don't want the zipper effect, is there an easy way to smooth out the control info after-the-fact in cubase or pulsar?
Will knob movement like this be recorded in the sequencer, so the sequencer controls the pulsar's audio faders?
Will knob movement like this be recorded in the sequencer, so the sequencer controls the pulsar's audio faders?
Message 23/53 11-Jan-99 @ 12:09 PM - RE: Pulsar is realy good??
It seems that major criticism on Pulsar is going on the Pulsar-dsp mailinglist at pulsar-dsp@usa.net. Users seem to be disappointed as the thing is not up to its potential. Instability, code, GUI problems, huge consumption of resources, it seems to be so RAM hundry that it's never enough for a flawless operation. Here's an excerpt from a posting to the list by Stuart Yoshida (I hope the author doens't mind):
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
-----------------
The Pulsar is an excellent sounding piece of audio hardware with plenty of great features, effects, dynamics processors, and inputs and outputs. In addition, Creamware has created a graphical user interface (GUI) to
represent their modular hardware/software environment that could be the start of a new paradigm for this type of system. However, the current instability and unreasonable resource load of the GUI makes the Pulsar a
marginal solution for those who are searching for the Holy Grail in ultimate low-cost, all-in-one DAW’s. So for now, I'm anxiously awaiting version 1.1 of the software in hopes of coming ever closer to reaching the
true potential of this powerful card.
Here’s how I rate the Pulsar on the “Electronic Musician” scale (out of 5):
Features: 4
Ease-of-use: 2 (due to instability and inefficient code)
Audio Quality: 4.5
Value: 3
PROS: High-quality audio sound, and gazillions of I/O options. Incredible flexibility and features; with everything from a GUI-based patchbay, to classic sounding synths that beat the pants off of any sample-based player,
to a 32-channel MIDI-controllable mixer that is loaded with inserts,processors, effects, and automation (provided you have a MIDI sequencer handy).
CONS: The software is version 1.0. What more can I say? Too many crashes,too long a wait to load projects, too much resource drains on CPU utilization and system memory, and too sluggish a response from the GUI,
especially from a system that is supposed to off-load the CPU with dedicated DSP hardware.
At times I was elated with the Pulsar, and at other times I wanted to rip the card from its slot and send it back. Because on one hand, the new mix came out great in the end. The 4-band parametric EQ was very usable, and
the compressor was quite adequate for beefing up individual tracks. I also put a stereo phase on the lead guitar, and it really added spice to the mix. The quality of the effects are head-and-shoulders above the
equivalent features in SAWPlus, but I would expect that from a system with dedicated hardware. And the GUI patchbay is AWESOME. It’s very intuitive for the most part, and genuinely useful. I loved being about to route and re-route signals with just a click of the mouse to get the configurations I needed to optimize the mix.
On the other hand, I lost 2 hours worth of work when the program crashed and TRASHED THE PROJECT FILE. Yikes! To say that I was disappointed would be an understatement. But this typified the code stability of the initial
release. The slow response of the GUI was also annoying and counter-productive. I would trade-off a less flashy looking GUI for a more responsive program in a heartbeat.
IN SUMMARY
----------
Well, I'm gonna keep the Pulsar, but it’s a close call. Call me a sucker,but I think Creamware will take the Pulsar to its true potential. HOWEVER,they need to also take it to heart that the current release of their code
is in a place far, far from where it needs to be. The fact that the GUI itself requires a system with greater than 128MB of memory and a huge swap file is ridiculous! I can understand the need for plenty of system memory
for things like sample-based synths, but even the 32-channel mixer and “analog” synths suck up resources like a black hole. The excuse of saying,“buy a more powerful system” doesn't fly because that takes the onus off of
Creamware to fully exploit the capabilities of the Pulsar. And the sluggishness of the GUI is inexcusable. If you’re going to make a whole new GUI on top of Windows95, you better make it MORE EFFICIENT than
Windows95. The Pulsar GUI seems to have taken a giant step BACKWARDS.
My question is, “Why doesn't Creamware take the opportunity to create a truly powerful system that completely off-loads the PC so that anyone with
a Pentium computer can take advantage of the Pulsar?” This approach will tap into a much bigger market for them, and there isn't any reason why Creamware couldn't do this with the Pulsar.
Here’re some hard, cold facts about the Pulsar GUI:
* It took two minutes and 51 seconds to load a project into the Pulsar GUI. It took less than two SECONDS to load the equivalent project into SAWPro.
* SAWPro’s interface is very snappy and truly responsive. The automated mixing of channel levels and pan positions hardly makes the computer break a sweat. I can mix a 24-track project on my computer with all kinds of edits and pans, and the resource meter will keep in the 75% to 95% available range. The only things which slows down SAWPro are number crunching intensive operations such as EQ, compression, and reverb that
quickly bring the CPU to its knees. Pulsar, on the other hand, brings the CPU to its knees whenever a MIDI-controlled automated fader movement is made. And that’s where the Pulsar should shine!
So Creamware, here is my challenge to you: use SAWPro as the benchmark in code efficiency and speed that you aspire to reach so that the Pulsar can attain the status of a truly “stellar” product.
Maybe the helpful whitenoise guy could tell something in this regard?
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
-----------------
The Pulsar is an excellent sounding piece of audio hardware with plenty of great features, effects, dynamics processors, and inputs and outputs. In addition, Creamware has created a graphical user interface (GUI) to
represent their modular hardware/software environment that could be the start of a new paradigm for this type of system. However, the current instability and unreasonable resource load of the GUI makes the Pulsar a
marginal solution for those who are searching for the Holy Grail in ultimate low-cost, all-in-one DAW’s. So for now, I'm anxiously awaiting version 1.1 of the software in hopes of coming ever closer to reaching the
true potential of this powerful card.
Here’s how I rate the Pulsar on the “Electronic Musician” scale (out of 5):
Features: 4
Ease-of-use: 2 (due to instability and inefficient code)
Audio Quality: 4.5
Value: 3
PROS: High-quality audio sound, and gazillions of I/O options. Incredible flexibility and features; with everything from a GUI-based patchbay, to classic sounding synths that beat the pants off of any sample-based player,
to a 32-channel MIDI-controllable mixer that is loaded with inserts,processors, effects, and automation (provided you have a MIDI sequencer handy).
CONS: The software is version 1.0. What more can I say? Too many crashes,too long a wait to load projects, too much resource drains on CPU utilization and system memory, and too sluggish a response from the GUI,
especially from a system that is supposed to off-load the CPU with dedicated DSP hardware.
At times I was elated with the Pulsar, and at other times I wanted to rip the card from its slot and send it back. Because on one hand, the new mix came out great in the end. The 4-band parametric EQ was very usable, and
the compressor was quite adequate for beefing up individual tracks. I also put a stereo phase on the lead guitar, and it really added spice to the mix. The quality of the effects are head-and-shoulders above the
equivalent features in SAWPlus, but I would expect that from a system with dedicated hardware. And the GUI patchbay is AWESOME. It’s very intuitive for the most part, and genuinely useful. I loved being about to route and re-route signals with just a click of the mouse to get the configurations I needed to optimize the mix.
On the other hand, I lost 2 hours worth of work when the program crashed and TRASHED THE PROJECT FILE. Yikes! To say that I was disappointed would be an understatement. But this typified the code stability of the initial
release. The slow response of the GUI was also annoying and counter-productive. I would trade-off a less flashy looking GUI for a more responsive program in a heartbeat.
IN SUMMARY
----------
Well, I'm gonna keep the Pulsar, but it’s a close call. Call me a sucker,but I think Creamware will take the Pulsar to its true potential. HOWEVER,they need to also take it to heart that the current release of their code
is in a place far, far from where it needs to be. The fact that the GUI itself requires a system with greater than 128MB of memory and a huge swap file is ridiculous! I can understand the need for plenty of system memory
for things like sample-based synths, but even the 32-channel mixer and “analog” synths suck up resources like a black hole. The excuse of saying,“buy a more powerful system” doesn't fly because that takes the onus off of
Creamware to fully exploit the capabilities of the Pulsar. And the sluggishness of the GUI is inexcusable. If you’re going to make a whole new GUI on top of Windows95, you better make it MORE EFFICIENT than
Windows95. The Pulsar GUI seems to have taken a giant step BACKWARDS.
My question is, “Why doesn't Creamware take the opportunity to create a truly powerful system that completely off-loads the PC so that anyone with
a Pentium computer can take advantage of the Pulsar?” This approach will tap into a much bigger market for them, and there isn't any reason why Creamware couldn't do this with the Pulsar.
Here’re some hard, cold facts about the Pulsar GUI:
* It took two minutes and 51 seconds to load a project into the Pulsar GUI. It took less than two SECONDS to load the equivalent project into SAWPro.
* SAWPro’s interface is very snappy and truly responsive. The automated mixing of channel levels and pan positions hardly makes the computer break a sweat. I can mix a 24-track project on my computer with all kinds of edits and pans, and the resource meter will keep in the 75% to 95% available range. The only things which slows down SAWPro are number crunching intensive operations such as EQ, compression, and reverb that
quickly bring the CPU to its knees. Pulsar, on the other hand, brings the CPU to its knees whenever a MIDI-controlled automated fader movement is made. And that’s where the Pulsar should shine!
So Creamware, here is my challenge to you: use SAWPro as the benchmark in code efficiency and speed that you aspire to reach so that the Pulsar can attain the status of a truly “stellar” product.
Maybe the helpful whitenoise guy could tell something in this regard?
Message 24/53 11-Jan-99 @ 06:18 PM - That sure sheds some light
128 mgs of memory in your computer to run Pulsar? You gotta be shitting me!!
Why would creamware design a self-contained system that runs slow? This sure makes me think twice about this card. I don't want to curse and moan every 5 minutes when using it.
Hey, Mr. White Noise, what about this? Maybe the above mentioned system is not configured correctly? Otherwise, this is fucked.
Mr. Realist
Why would creamware design a self-contained system that runs slow? This sure makes me think twice about this card. I don't want to curse and moan every 5 minutes when using it.
Hey, Mr. White Noise, what about this? Maybe the above mentioned system is not configured correctly? Otherwise, this is fucked.
Mr. Realist
Message 25/53 11-Jan-99 @ 07:35 PM - RE: Pulsar is realy good??
I KNEW WINDOWS 95 WOULD BE THE DEATH OF THIS CARD. INDEPENDENT OPERATING SYSTEM MY ASS.
Message 26/53 12-Jan-99 @ 02:52 AM - RE: Pulsar is realy good??
I've only just gotten onto the list, but from what I've
read a lot of users' problems have been because of too
much load on the pci bus. I wonder if Mr. Yoshida's GUI
problems would result w/ an AGP graphics card, which would
be a cheap fix.
Realist2, if you've got info on his specific setup, I'd
appreciate readin
read a lot of users' problems have been because of too
much load on the pci bus. I wonder if Mr. Yoshida's GUI
problems would result w/ an AGP graphics card, which would
be a cheap fix.
Realist2, if you've got info on his specific setup, I'd
appreciate readin
Message 27/53 12-Jan-99 @ 05:43 AM - RE: Pulsar is realy good??
Hi Gang; I've been bust for a couple of days - looks like y'all have been too. ;o) Stirrin' that ol' rumor pot is quite time consuming isn't it? Well, gosh, whose questions do I try to answer first. I'll tell you whose I'm not going to bother with - the repost. That is from the Pulsa-DSP Factory mailing list and as far as I am concerned the "debate" can rage there. I see no need to address the same information on two different forums. Sorry if you don't like that - but not really. *chuckle*
I will say though: No, Creamware is not "shitting" about the advised use of at least 128MB of RAM - especially for those of us, (myself included,) with "slower" machines. What the *un-realists* apparently choose to disregard is that systems of this nature are going to continually demand more performance capability of the system in general. Yes, Pulsar DOES do things that do not eat clock cycles on the CPU. That does not mean that other system elements are not having demand placed upon them, and _those_ perfunctory tasks DO require administration by the Master Computer. (Insert heavy, descending diminished chord progression here.)
Where are applications and their components stored? On the harddrives. Where do applications and there components get loaded to? RAM. Who executes the instructions contained in the applications and their components? THAT depends. In Pulsar's case - the SHARC processors. Who paints the pictures on the screen? The Video card. Who tells everybody when to jump and how high? The CPU - Coppus Pluribus Unum.
Sorry, bub, but your 233 is probably not a lot better than my 200. Of course, if you were just a bit more realistic you might find all kinds of use for Pulsar in your system. I do. I also find that after having used it on a faster system, I want a faster system. With more RAM, faster RAM, faster CPU, faster harddrives. And yes, I can use my host-based application's talents, (I believe you mentioned Cubase,) and Pulsar's talents combined. Of course - THAT's what it was designed for!! People who wouldn't take the time to investigate Creamware's audio production applications. ;o)
So, don't think twice about the card, Mr. Realist the First. Don't think about it at all. Use something else - some "couple-hundred dollar maybe more than two channel interface". It'll probably work just fine for you and you'll never have any difficulty whatsoever. After all, all it will be is just some ins and some outs, right? What could go wrong? You've got all of the processing you'll ever need in your software.
No, I'm not being condescending, but I also do not feel inclined to have to re-iterate and re-justify everything I say because you choose to hear something negative, take IT as gospel without anymore research or verification than you've given to my commentary, and launch insulting and negative commentaries in a public forum. You give barbs - expect 'em back. I'm only human, after all.
FWIW - there are at least as many, if not more people, on that list who have NOT had problems to report as "drastic" as Mr. Yoshida's. There are also quite a number of people I contact personally in my territory who do not participate on the Internet - THEY WORK. AND, they work _now_ using Pulsar. People are quite happy with most aspects of Pulsar. And there are things that Creamware FREELY ACKNOWLEDGES need to be fixed and improved. If all you want to do is bellyache - then start a thread of "Pulsar Whines". ;o) I promise not to interfere - or participate. You can say whatever you want!!
The FACT is that in spite of admitted and acknowledged and irritating and annoying problems, bugs, omissions, etc... Pulsar works. Today. And people are not slowing down buying it, the pace is pickin up. There is nothing else that does what this does. Period. There is nothing else today that will be able to do what this will be able to do tomorrow. Period. Particularly in this price range. Period.
As to the questions regarding the external controllers... Creamware is working on hardware surface concepts - but nothing in any way shape or form is announced or pending announcement at this time. I wouldn't expect to hear anything on the topic until the end of the year. If you are trying to develop your own controller, the only way I can imagine interfacing it at this time would be MIDI and that will introduce those 128 value limitations. You can _try_ to see if you might qualify as a Development Partner, but that is not through me - you need to contact Creamware directly.
On a more civil note with Mr. Realist the First and his questions concerning converters. You're absolutely right about the 96kHz thing. You're probably looking at a bit-splitting convertoer feeding the dual lightpipe inteface for a total of 8 channels from 16. Creamware has indicated that dither would occur at mixer output, but as yet has provided no details. I suspect we might hear something 'round the NAMM show/end of the month projected v1.1 release time.
I personally have been too busy creating the scripts for the trade show demos and content for my web site and attending to my Dealer's needs and assisting local customers and re-locating to take any time to do any recording myself. Besides, I'm hoping I can avoid ever having to use a MIDI sequencer for audio recording altogether and the v3.0 release for tripleDAT will arrive to spare me that horror. I may have to succumb, but it will be with strong resistance, I assure you. ;o) Oh, and I think that they've sneaked a peek of another synth onto the website. Of course, it probably isn't worth much since it's free....
Best of Luck!!
P.S. - I would appreciate it, tremendously, if you folks wish to address me that you use my name. I'm not ashamed of it - that's why I include it - and my real address too. I even named my company after me. What an ego, huh? ;o) Just a little respect though, please. It'd go a long way. And, "Jeff" is just fine. ;o) You want to remain anonymous, that's your call.
Jeff White President White Noise Marketing http://www.whitenoisemarketing.com
I will say though: No, Creamware is not "shitting" about the advised use of at least 128MB of RAM - especially for those of us, (myself included,) with "slower" machines. What the *un-realists* apparently choose to disregard is that systems of this nature are going to continually demand more performance capability of the system in general. Yes, Pulsar DOES do things that do not eat clock cycles on the CPU. That does not mean that other system elements are not having demand placed upon them, and _those_ perfunctory tasks DO require administration by the Master Computer. (Insert heavy, descending diminished chord progression here.)
Where are applications and their components stored? On the harddrives. Where do applications and there components get loaded to? RAM. Who executes the instructions contained in the applications and their components? THAT depends. In Pulsar's case - the SHARC processors. Who paints the pictures on the screen? The Video card. Who tells everybody when to jump and how high? The CPU - Coppus Pluribus Unum.
Sorry, bub, but your 233 is probably not a lot better than my 200. Of course, if you were just a bit more realistic you might find all kinds of use for Pulsar in your system. I do. I also find that after having used it on a faster system, I want a faster system. With more RAM, faster RAM, faster CPU, faster harddrives. And yes, I can use my host-based application's talents, (I believe you mentioned Cubase,) and Pulsar's talents combined. Of course - THAT's what it was designed for!! People who wouldn't take the time to investigate Creamware's audio production applications. ;o)
So, don't think twice about the card, Mr. Realist the First. Don't think about it at all. Use something else - some "couple-hundred dollar maybe more than two channel interface". It'll probably work just fine for you and you'll never have any difficulty whatsoever. After all, all it will be is just some ins and some outs, right? What could go wrong? You've got all of the processing you'll ever need in your software.
No, I'm not being condescending, but I also do not feel inclined to have to re-iterate and re-justify everything I say because you choose to hear something negative, take IT as gospel without anymore research or verification than you've given to my commentary, and launch insulting and negative commentaries in a public forum. You give barbs - expect 'em back. I'm only human, after all.
FWIW - there are at least as many, if not more people, on that list who have NOT had problems to report as "drastic" as Mr. Yoshida's. There are also quite a number of people I contact personally in my territory who do not participate on the Internet - THEY WORK. AND, they work _now_ using Pulsar. People are quite happy with most aspects of Pulsar. And there are things that Creamware FREELY ACKNOWLEDGES need to be fixed and improved. If all you want to do is bellyache - then start a thread of "Pulsar Whines". ;o) I promise not to interfere - or participate. You can say whatever you want!!
The FACT is that in spite of admitted and acknowledged and irritating and annoying problems, bugs, omissions, etc... Pulsar works. Today. And people are not slowing down buying it, the pace is pickin up. There is nothing else that does what this does. Period. There is nothing else today that will be able to do what this will be able to do tomorrow. Period. Particularly in this price range. Period.
As to the questions regarding the external controllers... Creamware is working on hardware surface concepts - but nothing in any way shape or form is announced or pending announcement at this time. I wouldn't expect to hear anything on the topic until the end of the year. If you are trying to develop your own controller, the only way I can imagine interfacing it at this time would be MIDI and that will introduce those 128 value limitations. You can _try_ to see if you might qualify as a Development Partner, but that is not through me - you need to contact Creamware directly.
On a more civil note with Mr. Realist the First and his questions concerning converters. You're absolutely right about the 96kHz thing. You're probably looking at a bit-splitting convertoer feeding the dual lightpipe inteface for a total of 8 channels from 16. Creamware has indicated that dither would occur at mixer output, but as yet has provided no details. I suspect we might hear something 'round the NAMM show/end of the month projected v1.1 release time.
I personally have been too busy creating the scripts for the trade show demos and content for my web site and attending to my Dealer's needs and assisting local customers and re-locating to take any time to do any recording myself. Besides, I'm hoping I can avoid ever having to use a MIDI sequencer for audio recording altogether and the v3.0 release for tripleDAT will arrive to spare me that horror. I may have to succumb, but it will be with strong resistance, I assure you. ;o) Oh, and I think that they've sneaked a peek of another synth onto the website. Of course, it probably isn't worth much since it's free....
Best of Luck!!
P.S. - I would appreciate it, tremendously, if you folks wish to address me that you use my name. I'm not ashamed of it - that's why I include it - and my real address too. I even named my company after me. What an ego, huh? ;o) Just a little respect though, please. It'd go a long way. And, "Jeff" is just fine. ;o) You want to remain anonymous, that's your call.
Jeff White President White Noise Marketing http://www.whitenoisemarketing.com
Message 28/53 12-Jan-99 @ 04:53 PM - It's good to have you back, Jeffrey...
We were wondering if you had decided to leave us. Then we'd have to find someone else to throw barbs at!!
Just kidding. You can see I don't take all of this back and forth yapping seriously, right?
About the pulsar: The previous post about the guy having serious problems brings up a few issues here:
Most people do not have a PII 450 machine with 128 mgs ram to run pulsar, software, etc. Of course, the more power the better. But creamware advertises the pulsar to run on it's own without cpu drainage, and that looks appealing to the average schmoe (like me) who has a slower computer and wants a pro sound card.
Creamware should come out and say, "You need a PII 300 (or whatever) and 128 mgs ram to get full functionality from the card." Of course, to do this would be a knife in the back of their sales, as they depend so much on the novice musician who looks at the brochure and says, "Wow, it looks cool and they say it does all this stuff, so I'm going to buy it." Hey, I've been there too, and I've learned some lessons along the way myself.
Another thing: I'd like to demo the card. How in the hell am I going to do that? The stores don't have them because there sold before they arrive (thank you clever marketing schemes). So am I dependent on what users say about it. And believe me, that guy above with the problems weighs quite heavily in swaying my opinion.
To summarize: Anything computer related will have problems, including the mixer/blender/coffee maker sound card that does it all. These forums are the voice of the infantry, not the officers....
Mr. Realist
Just kidding. You can see I don't take all of this back and forth yapping seriously, right?
About the pulsar: The previous post about the guy having serious problems brings up a few issues here:
Most people do not have a PII 450 machine with 128 mgs ram to run pulsar, software, etc. Of course, the more power the better. But creamware advertises the pulsar to run on it's own without cpu drainage, and that looks appealing to the average schmoe (like me) who has a slower computer and wants a pro sound card.
Creamware should come out and say, "You need a PII 300 (or whatever) and 128 mgs ram to get full functionality from the card." Of course, to do this would be a knife in the back of their sales, as they depend so much on the novice musician who looks at the brochure and says, "Wow, it looks cool and they say it does all this stuff, so I'm going to buy it." Hey, I've been there too, and I've learned some lessons along the way myself.
Another thing: I'd like to demo the card. How in the hell am I going to do that? The stores don't have them because there sold before they arrive (thank you clever marketing schemes). So am I dependent on what users say about it. And believe me, that guy above with the problems weighs quite heavily in swaying my opinion.
To summarize: Anything computer related will have problems, including the mixer/blender/coffee maker sound card that does it all. These forums are the voice of the infantry, not the officers....
Mr. Realist
Message 29/53 12-Jan-99 @ 07:01 PM - RE: Pulsar is realy good??
Mr. Realist:
Cool, Man. I think you and I are actually making progress. And, truthfully, I have noticed quite a bit of sincere interest and thought in your posts - in and amongst the, well.... you know... ;o)
Pulsar has only been shipping a little over a month. Prior to that, Creamware was reluctant to put out a "minimal/optimal/excellent" system recommendation because it simply did not know how far it could take the software prior to release. I tell you truthfully that there is a significant difference in the performance of the software from the Beta version one week before release and what started shipping as v1.0.
I haven't called Creamware anonymously to inquire as to what they are recommending, but I think it has been put out there in more than one instance and pretty well established. Likewise, I am too busy to go peruse their web site daily to find out what their content or layout is. That's their responsibility, not mine. ;o) Your suggestion is quite valid and I beleive they have taken to recommending 300/128 as a realistic starting point.
Please do not forget (or mis-understand,) that Pulsar - like all Creamware products - is targeted as a professional product - not an enthusiast or hobbyist product. Just because it - like other Creamware products - has an attractively "low" price point (by comparison with many things) does not mean that it is intended even as an upgrade for someone who previously has done everything and been satisfied with a SoundBlaster. (My sincere apologies if anyone takes offense at that, but it is one of the best illustrations that can be made. If you ARE satisfied with your SoundBlaster, THAT is what is important.)
Only a week ago did Pulsar Plus become available. In two weeks we have the largest trade show of the year. Around that event are several proposed and planned reveisions, releases, and possibilities for announcements. But new announcements are held very close to the vest. Not even us reps get that information. To risky!! ;o)
The point is, Pulsar does run on slower machines. Slowly. ;o) I'm typing to you right now from the machine I use it on - a P-200, pre-MMX, with 64 MB EDO RAM, 2.5 GB EIDE HD, 2940UW, 5400 RPM 3GB SCSI HD, stock (wimpy) video. I run Pulsar. And I am psyched with it. BUT - I also realize that to use it the way I would LIKE to be able to use it, I need much. MUCH more machine.
Heck, I need much much more Pulsar. Rather, I am eagerly waiting for SCOPE - and the I/O-less, software-less SCOPE card that will be less than $5k retail for use as DSP expansion with Pulsar. AND much much more machine. I haven't bothered trying to do any serious recording with a MIDI sequencer because, IMHO and that of others, there are lots of problems with them. I have Cubase VST-24 and Cakewalk Pro Audio 8 and Sound Forge and Acid as well as tripleDAT. All of them work - to varying degrees. But I could easily spend all of my time becoming proficient enough with each of them and never really accomplish much. Perhaps after NAMM..... ;o)
The two single loudest complaints occurring right now on the pulsar-dsp@usa.net mailing list are related to recording offset in Cakewalk and rapid screen redraws. The first is not a "latency" issue as much as it pertains to the driver itself. It is known, it will be addressed quickly and should be resolved within a matter of days. The second creates more of a problem if trying to use the onscreen meters "reliably and accurately". Since I have always used meters _only_ as a tacet reference, it hasn't been a problem for me - but I am not everyone. ;o)
One surprise I found was that the release version of the FM synth went out as monophonic. I can only imagine that there will be a forthcoming change to that.
Anyway, come up with more questions. I'll do my best for you folks. As time permits. I am flying to BC next week and won't be around much for about three weeks because of the trade show and immediately following activities.
Regarding the User getting a demonstration.... I agree with you 1000% - the sotres should take the responsibility of setting up demo units on their floors. They do with other products. The sheer quantity of computer hardware though has made this an increasingly complex problem. I will say that Sam Ash in Hollywood DOES have a Pulsar instaled in a demo system on the floor - and a 300/128 to boot! It rocks!! I was really excited to go in and use their system.
You should check with your local Dealers to see if they a) carry Creamware and B) when they are scheduling product presentations with their local reps. We are very active in doing this right now - and for months to come. I am already booking into March in my area. You can always call Creamware to find out where a demo might be presented in your area as well.
Best of Luck!!
Jeff White President White Noise Marketing http://www.whitenoisemarketing.com
Cool, Man. I think you and I are actually making progress. And, truthfully, I have noticed quite a bit of sincere interest and thought in your posts - in and amongst the, well.... you know... ;o)
Pulsar has only been shipping a little over a month. Prior to that, Creamware was reluctant to put out a "minimal/optimal/excellent" system recommendation because it simply did not know how far it could take the software prior to release. I tell you truthfully that there is a significant difference in the performance of the software from the Beta version one week before release and what started shipping as v1.0.
I haven't called Creamware anonymously to inquire as to what they are recommending, but I think it has been put out there in more than one instance and pretty well established. Likewise, I am too busy to go peruse their web site daily to find out what their content or layout is. That's their responsibility, not mine. ;o) Your suggestion is quite valid and I beleive they have taken to recommending 300/128 as a realistic starting point.
Please do not forget (or mis-understand,) that Pulsar - like all Creamware products - is targeted as a professional product - not an enthusiast or hobbyist product. Just because it - like other Creamware products - has an attractively "low" price point (by comparison with many things) does not mean that it is intended even as an upgrade for someone who previously has done everything and been satisfied with a SoundBlaster. (My sincere apologies if anyone takes offense at that, but it is one of the best illustrations that can be made. If you ARE satisfied with your SoundBlaster, THAT is what is important.)
Only a week ago did Pulsar Plus become available. In two weeks we have the largest trade show of the year. Around that event are several proposed and planned reveisions, releases, and possibilities for announcements. But new announcements are held very close to the vest. Not even us reps get that information. To risky!! ;o)
The point is, Pulsar does run on slower machines. Slowly. ;o) I'm typing to you right now from the machine I use it on - a P-200, pre-MMX, with 64 MB EDO RAM, 2.5 GB EIDE HD, 2940UW, 5400 RPM 3GB SCSI HD, stock (wimpy) video. I run Pulsar. And I am psyched with it. BUT - I also realize that to use it the way I would LIKE to be able to use it, I need much. MUCH more machine.
Heck, I need much much more Pulsar. Rather, I am eagerly waiting for SCOPE - and the I/O-less, software-less SCOPE card that will be less than $5k retail for use as DSP expansion with Pulsar. AND much much more machine. I haven't bothered trying to do any serious recording with a MIDI sequencer because, IMHO and that of others, there are lots of problems with them. I have Cubase VST-24 and Cakewalk Pro Audio 8 and Sound Forge and Acid as well as tripleDAT. All of them work - to varying degrees. But I could easily spend all of my time becoming proficient enough with each of them and never really accomplish much. Perhaps after NAMM..... ;o)
The two single loudest complaints occurring right now on the pulsar-dsp@usa.net mailing list are related to recording offset in Cakewalk and rapid screen redraws. The first is not a "latency" issue as much as it pertains to the driver itself. It is known, it will be addressed quickly and should be resolved within a matter of days. The second creates more of a problem if trying to use the onscreen meters "reliably and accurately". Since I have always used meters _only_ as a tacet reference, it hasn't been a problem for me - but I am not everyone. ;o)
One surprise I found was that the release version of the FM synth went out as monophonic. I can only imagine that there will be a forthcoming change to that.
Anyway, come up with more questions. I'll do my best for you folks. As time permits. I am flying to BC next week and won't be around much for about three weeks because of the trade show and immediately following activities.
Regarding the User getting a demonstration.... I agree with you 1000% - the sotres should take the responsibility of setting up demo units on their floors. They do with other products. The sheer quantity of computer hardware though has made this an increasingly complex problem. I will say that Sam Ash in Hollywood DOES have a Pulsar instaled in a demo system on the floor - and a 300/128 to boot! It rocks!! I was really excited to go in and use their system.
You should check with your local Dealers to see if they a) carry Creamware and B) when they are scheduling product presentations with their local reps. We are very active in doing this right now - and for months to come. I am already booking into March in my area. You can always call Creamware to find out where a demo might be presented in your area as well.
Best of Luck!!
Jeff White President White Noise Marketing http://www.whitenoisemarketing.com
Message 30/53 13-Jan-99 @ 01:41 AM - Pulsar Sample player
This is a big one: Is the sample player multi-timbral?
Can you drive a sequencer with up to 16 different patches?
This sounds like it would be too good to be true, as then it would be a sound module and we would all be as happy as a pig in slop!!!
Mr. Realist
Can you drive a sequencer with up to 16 different patches?
This sounds like it would be too good to be true, as then it would be a sound module and we would all be as happy as a pig in slop!!!
Mr. Realist
Message 31/53 14-Jan-99 @ 04:04 AM - RE: Pulsar is realy good??
This question is for Mr. White or anyone else who knows. Does Pulsar support dual processors? I built my own computer with an Asus dual processor mother board, supporting two 350 PII processors and 128 ram. I want to get Pulsar regardless, but would be extremely happy if it could optimize both of my processors. (Yes, i realize it doesn't put a big starin on the CPU)
Message 32/53 14-Jan-99 @ 06:56 PM - RE: Pulsar is realy good??
Barclay, I'm going to be posing that question directly to Creamware, I'll let you know what I find out.
Message 33/53 14-Jan-99 @ 07:28 PM - RE: Pulsar is realy good??
Hi Group:
First, as to sample player multitimbrality... "No". And , yes. Each instance of either sample player can load an "instrument". That "instrument's" performance parameters are defined when it is "constructed". Including multi-sample mapping, velocity mapping, etc.. etc... etc.... Now, there are additional "layers" that can be loaded within the player, too. A total of four layers - the main, plus three. The sample player "F" includes global filter parameter controls that the other does not.
You can load multiple instances of each sample player. Each by itself responds to a particular User selected MIDI channel. Each instance can be assigned to a different MIDI channel. On the web site, (I believe,) Creamware has stated that the intent is to allow up to 64 note polyphony for the sample player. Now, that, I believe, is for the non-"F" version. I have only tried so far playing around with the "F" version and it maxes out at 16 notes. That is part of the trade off. I have not yet personally confirmed that the 64-note polyphony is implemented in the current revision of the software - nor have I determined whether the 64 notes is cumulative amongst all instances of the player, or it is per device loaded.
The point being, you can most definitely have a multitimbral sample playback set-up.
As to whether the application is multi0threaded... No, not at this time. It runs currently only under Win9X - not NT?X?X?X?. The problematics associated with reliable simultaneous audio and MIDI , (and everything else that people would want to do at the same time because "they thought they should be able to",) has compelled Creamware to wait for NT5/2000/??? to evaluate if it can be suitable for the performance level they insist upon.
It is not a matter of hardware compatibility, (it is PCI, after all,) as much as it is driver/application interfacing. Of course, I am not a programmer or engineer and there may be more - or less - to it than that. *shrug* ;o)
Best of Luck!!
(P.S. - you make me blush by calling me Mr. White - Jeff is just fine! ;o) Mr. White is my Dad.)
Jeff White President White Noise Marketing http://www.whitenoisemarketing.com
First, as to sample player multitimbrality... "No". And , yes. Each instance of either sample player can load an "instrument". That "instrument's" performance parameters are defined when it is "constructed". Including multi-sample mapping, velocity mapping, etc.. etc... etc.... Now, there are additional "layers" that can be loaded within the player, too. A total of four layers - the main, plus three. The sample player "F" includes global filter parameter controls that the other does not.
You can load multiple instances of each sample player. Each by itself responds to a particular User selected MIDI channel. Each instance can be assigned to a different MIDI channel. On the web site, (I believe,) Creamware has stated that the intent is to allow up to 64 note polyphony for the sample player. Now, that, I believe, is for the non-"F" version. I have only tried so far playing around with the "F" version and it maxes out at 16 notes. That is part of the trade off. I have not yet personally confirmed that the 64-note polyphony is implemented in the current revision of the software - nor have I determined whether the 64 notes is cumulative amongst all instances of the player, or it is per device loaded.
The point being, you can most definitely have a multitimbral sample playback set-up.
As to whether the application is multi0threaded... No, not at this time. It runs currently only under Win9X - not NT?X?X?X?. The problematics associated with reliable simultaneous audio and MIDI , (and everything else that people would want to do at the same time because "they thought they should be able to",) has compelled Creamware to wait for NT5/2000/??? to evaluate if it can be suitable for the performance level they insist upon.
It is not a matter of hardware compatibility, (it is PCI, after all,) as much as it is driver/application interfacing. Of course, I am not a programmer or engineer and there may be more - or less - to it than that. *shrug* ;o)
Best of Luck!!
(P.S. - you make me blush by calling me Mr. White - Jeff is just fine! ;o) Mr. White is my Dad.)
Jeff White President White Noise Marketing http://www.whitenoisemarketing.com
Message 34/53 14-Jan-99 @ 10:25 PM - Here's what I want
I'd like to be able to have drums and maybe a couple more patches for background stuff. I'd like to be able to hear all of this when the sequencers plays back. Is there enough balls in the pulsar sample player to handle a drum kit and a couple more patches all at once?
Mr. Realist
Mr. Realist
Message 35/53 14-Jan-99 @ 11:05 PM - RE: Pulsar is realy good??
You just load several of them. That's what I did the other day. Loaded three sample players. One was doing the drums, the others were for backing tracks. Assigned them to different midi channels, tried out some effects. It all worked fine. I sequence on Cubase.
Message 36/53 15-Jan-99 @ 08:24 AM - RE: Pulsar is realy good??
can someone tell me how to reach the mailing list? is there a website entrance or is it a newsgroup? may be i'm doing it wrong, but i didn't get the mailing list :-/
I'll be back here when i have my new p2-350. ij ust bought the pulsar, but the computer store didn't have motherboards left (not the one i wanted). I tried to install pulsar in my 166 non mmx, and it doesn't work. well, i knew it wouldn't work anyway, but it's a week now that pulsaris in front of me , in its box, and it giggles at me!!!!
See ya
Med
I'll be back here when i have my new p2-350. ij ust bought the pulsar, but the computer store didn't have motherboards left (not the one i wanted). I tried to install pulsar in my 166 non mmx, and it doesn't work. well, i knew it wouldn't work anyway, but it's a week now that pulsaris in front of me , in its box, and it giggles at me!!!!
See ya
Med
Message 37/53 15-Jan-99 @ 08:39 AM - RE: Pulsar is realy good??
oh yeah, about OVERCLOCKING,
the pulsar manual says that overclocking of the cpu causes overclocking of the pci bus, from 33mhz to 37,5 or 41. and you may have problems with that as pci is designed for 33mhz max.
CREAMWARE does NOT recommend overclocking of the pci bus.
MED
NB: i'm uploading the PDF manual to my home page so u can dowload it and see a lot more than what can be said (yes, it has screenshot and colors and stuff.) it's more than 4 megs, i hope i have enough disk space...
See ya
the pulsar manual says that overclocking of the cpu causes overclocking of the pci bus, from 33mhz to 37,5 or 41. and you may have problems with that as pci is designed for 33mhz max.
CREAMWARE does NOT recommend overclocking of the pci bus.
MED
NB: i'm uploading the PDF manual to my home page so u can dowload it and see a lot more than what can be said (yes, it has screenshot and colors and stuff.) it's more than 4 megs, i hope i have enough disk space...
See ya
Message 38/53 15-Jan-99 @ 09:16 AM - RE: Pulsar is realy good??
PULSAR MANUAL IN ENGLISH
http://perso.club-internet.fr/calm/pulsar.htm
If u want, you can get some of my tracks on
http://perso.club-internet.fr/calm/
MED
http://perso.club-internet.fr/calm/pulsar.htm
If u want, you can get some of my tracks on
http://perso.club-internet.fr/calm/
MED
Message 39/53 15-Jan-99 @ 10:38 PM - Thanks for the manual
I'm checking it out now. I've heard it's not very complete, but we'll see.
Mr. Realist
Mr. Realist
Message 40/53 19-Jan-99 @ 07:03 AM - RE: Pulsar is realy good??
it's a good manual 
on my new p2-350-128mb ram - stb velocity card, pulsar ROCKS
The samplers suck but it doesn't matter, i have my awe64Gold, and i pass it through pulsar mixtable and it rocks even more (good EQ).
But it IS a pro stuff, not a sound card.
MED
i'm going back to pulsar :-)
See ya
on my new p2-350-128mb ram - stb velocity card, pulsar ROCKS
The samplers suck but it doesn't matter, i have my awe64Gold, and i pass it through pulsar mixtable and it rocks even more (good EQ).
But it IS a pro stuff, not a sound card.
MED
i'm going back to pulsar :-)
See ya
Message 41/53 21-Jan-99 @ 05:03 PM - Pulsar or not?
I am in the process of upgrading my PC and I am trying to decide which route might be the smarter.
My current config:
PII - 300,64mb,5 SCSI hard drives (1 4gb Wide dedicated to mutitrack audio),Layla,Cakewalk with a bunch of DX effects.
I am trying to choose between upgrading to a PII - 450, 128mb ram and a faster hard drive or just upgrading the ram and getting a Pulsar. Just upgrading the PC will keep me in an open end system for the future but I believe the pulsar will be much more powerful. I am mostly concerned with using it for mixing and DSP functions. Thanks for your advice.
My current config:
PII - 300,64mb,5 SCSI hard drives (1 4gb Wide dedicated to mutitrack audio),Layla,Cakewalk with a bunch of DX effects.
I am trying to choose between upgrading to a PII - 450, 128mb ram and a faster hard drive or just upgrading the ram and getting a Pulsar. Just upgrading the PC will keep me in an open end system for the future but I believe the pulsar will be much more powerful. I am mostly concerned with using it for mixing and DSP functions. Thanks for your advice.
Message 42/53 21-Jan-99 @ 06:20 PM - Pulsar or not?
I am in the process of upgrading my PC and I am trying to decide which route might be the smarter.
My current config:
PII - 300,64mb,5 SCSI hard drives (1 4gb Wide dedicated to mutitrack audio),Layla,Cakewalk with a bunch of DX effects.
I am trying to choose between upgrading to a PII - 450, 128mb ram and a faster hard drive or just upgrading the ram and getting a Pulsar. Just upgrading the PC will keep me in an open end system for the future but I believe the pulsar will be much more powerful. I am mostly concerned with using it for mixing and DSP functions. Thanks for your advice.
My current config:
PII - 300,64mb,5 SCSI hard drives (1 4gb Wide dedicated to mutitrack audio),Layla,Cakewalk with a bunch of DX effects.
I am trying to choose between upgrading to a PII - 450, 128mb ram and a faster hard drive or just upgrading the ram and getting a Pulsar. Just upgrading the PC will keep me in an open end system for the future but I believe the pulsar will be much more powerful. I am mostly concerned with using it for mixing and DSP functions. Thanks for your advice.
Message 43/53 21-Jan-99 @ 06:47 PM - RE: Pulsar is realy good??
ATTENTION
don't get pulsar fort the samplers , they suck
the samples are not good.
The rest ROCKS, exept that dsp overloads too fast!!!!
3 synth , a big mixer and 1 or 2 effects and it's overloaded.
But still, i love it, the midi automation is great, the synths are great, the adat and asio interface
are great etc etc...
it rocks
MED
don't get pulsar fort the samplers , they suck
the samples are not good.
The rest ROCKS, exept that dsp overloads too fast!!!!
3 synth , a big mixer and 1 or 2 effects and it's overloaded.
But still, i love it, the midi automation is great, the synths are great, the adat and asio interface
are great etc etc...
it rocks
MED
Message 44/53 21-Jan-99 @ 07:13 PM - RE: Pulsar is realy good??
TO DUMOX@whatever.net
the mixer is very good, but the effects are quite "dsp consuming" (i tried with 2 or 3 synths though)
Remember that there's no reverb included, even if it comes in march (says creamw@re)
The equalizer is great.
if u use pulsar in combination with your leyla and vst or whatever, i think u get a very good config.
i'ml running p2 350mhz 128 ram. i think i'll get 128 ram more, because graphically, pulsar is a little bit slow (when u move a window for ex), even though i have a stb velocity 4400 with 16 mb ram.
I didn't use it with vst yet. but i have to buy that vst for a studio session on monday. so i'll report bugs and latency issues, if any....
See ya
MED
the mixer is very good, but the effects are quite "dsp consuming" (i tried with 2 or 3 synths though)
Remember that there's no reverb included, even if it comes in march (says creamw@re)
The equalizer is great.
if u use pulsar in combination with your leyla and vst or whatever, i think u get a very good config.
i'ml running p2 350mhz 128 ram. i think i'll get 128 ram more, because graphically, pulsar is a little bit slow (when u move a window for ex), even though i have a stb velocity 4400 with 16 mb ram.
I didn't use it with vst yet. but i have to buy that vst for a studio session on monday. so i'll report bugs and latency issues, if any....
See ya
MED
Message 45/53 21-Jan-99 @ 07:37 PM - RE: Pulsar is realy good??
I think I might use the synths but I would probably sequence them first in Cakewalk and then record them to audio tracks. I do this now with my Wavestation SR because it gives me more flexibility when mixing. I am just wondering at mixdown what kind of DSP power you have for EQ and effects. Has anybody mixed down 16 or 20 tracks and if so how many eq's and other effects were you able to use before maxing out the DSP?
Thanks.
Thanks.
Message 46/53 21-Jan-99 @ 11:14 PM - What's up with the sample player?
MED,
When you say the sampler sucks, what do you mean?
Maybe the included samples aren't very good, but the sample player works, right?
You can always get good samples.
What about the converters? How do they sound, compared to a gina card or whatnot?
thanks,
Mr. Realist
When you say the sampler sucks, what do you mean?
Maybe the included samples aren't very good, but the sample player works, right?
You can always get good samples.
What about the converters? How do they sound, compared to a gina card or whatnot?
thanks,
Mr. Realist
Message 47/53 21-Jan-99 @ 11:37 PM - RE: Pulsar is realy good??
Dmuxo
You can probably put a Celeron 400 in the motherboard you have now. C400's are about $165.00. Or you can buy a 300a and a bh6 and get 450 perfomance for one half the cost. I own a sw1000xg. I can run as many effects as I want and it never gets bogged down. I don't think the dsp's in Pulsar are as powerful as we have been led to believe. That why they sell the scope system for $5000.00 Just read the posts on this site. I also own Reality and use it for sampling. You can add quality effects to any wav. file with soundforge xp for $39.00. Pulsar in my opinion if too new and unproven. Its your call.
You can probably put a Celeron 400 in the motherboard you have now. C400's are about $165.00. Or you can buy a 300a and a bh6 and get 450 perfomance for one half the cost. I own a sw1000xg. I can run as many effects as I want and it never gets bogged down. I don't think the dsp's in Pulsar are as powerful as we have been led to believe. That why they sell the scope system for $5000.00 Just read the posts on this site. I also own Reality and use it for sampling. You can add quality effects to any wav. file with soundforge xp for $39.00. Pulsar in my opinion if too new and unproven. Its your call.
Message 48/53 22-Jan-99 @ 08:46 AM - RE: Pulsar is realy good??
The Pulsar manual says it won't work with overclocked CPU or something. And I think you're right about dsp's. I tend to believe it's a very clever marketing policy. Who's gonna buy Scope if Pulsar does everything? So Creamware gave us a card to show a huge potential, but in order to make full use of it one has to buy Scope. Let's face it, You wanna have some 16 tracks of audio loaded with effects, seven synths playing all at the same time? - you can't have this for a grand. Multiply by six. Now you've got a professional studio.
Message 49/53 23-Jan-99 @ 12:13 AM - RE: Pulsar is realy good??
the guy just before is right
i haven't had time to go into audio recording.
and mixing.
But i tried 1 ez synth (light) one modular (pretty big one) and another synth (fm one, very big load too) and i could add effects to the big mixer (oh, yeah, the 16 channel mixer for synth -or light dsp load) is not yet available :/) - but the mixer eq and manip (faders etc) really flows, no lag.
hey, it loads all its power right away, that's why it loads a lot on dsp...
but with any 2 synths, i've put : phaser and delay on 3 tracks and a stereo compressor on the master. again, all power for the mixer is there.
let's say that u still have to record audio tracks , then add other synth etc (for ex, use the vst outputs to send them to the mixer and add effects)
i'm going to have to use vst and smpte and the adat i/o (a16). so i'll goi into the mixer feature very soon. on monday actually, and WHAT, it's 2.00 am saturday!!! back to work! quick!!!
MED
i haven't had time to go into audio recording.
and mixing.
But i tried 1 ez synth (light) one modular (pretty big one) and another synth (fm one, very big load too) and i could add effects to the big mixer (oh, yeah, the 16 channel mixer for synth -or light dsp load) is not yet available :/) - but the mixer eq and manip (faders etc) really flows, no lag.
hey, it loads all its power right away, that's why it loads a lot on dsp...
but with any 2 synths, i've put : phaser and delay on 3 tracks and a stereo compressor on the master. again, all power for the mixer is there.
let's say that u still have to record audio tracks , then add other synth etc (for ex, use the vst outputs to send them to the mixer and add effects)
i'm going to have to use vst and smpte and the adat i/o (a16). so i'll goi into the mixer feature very soon. on monday actually, and WHAT, it's 2.00 am saturday!!! back to work! quick!!!
MED
Message 50/53 23-Jan-99 @ 01:55 AM - RE: Pulsar is realy good??
oh yes,
just installed win 98, my system is boosted at least 100%.
so is pulsar!!! loading projects (3 times faster), devices, display is better, faster etc...
i have a 350, 128 mb ram 100 mhz, stb 4400 16 mb graf card, freetech scorpion mother board.
go for win 98 if your still on win 95 with such a hardware configuration (ie a very very recent one).
other bad news. the manual says "with logic audio, use the 16 overlaying channels" or somethging like this. Well, this device is not on the cd. just like the synth mixer! it's in the manual but will be given later (grrrrrrrrr). well, the asio drivers are here, so o prob with that. but i prefer logic SOOOO much
MED
just installed win 98, my system is boosted at least 100%.
so is pulsar!!! loading projects (3 times faster), devices, display is better, faster etc...
i have a 350, 128 mb ram 100 mhz, stb 4400 16 mb graf card, freetech scorpion mother board.
go for win 98 if your still on win 95 with such a hardware configuration (ie a very very recent one).
other bad news. the manual says "with logic audio, use the 16 overlaying channels" or somethging like this. Well, this device is not on the cd. just like the synth mixer! it's in the manual but will be given later (grrrrrrrrr). well, the asio drivers are here, so o prob with that. but i prefer logic SOOOO much
MED
Message 51/53 24-Jan-99 @ 11:51 PM - RE: Pulsar is realy good??
to make full use of pulsar , u don't need a scope, but may be a daughter board with 4 or 5 more dsp
Message 52/53 25-Jan-99 @ 08:25 AM - RE: Pulsar is realy good??
Does Creamware plan a release of such dsp daughterboard? That would be great.
Message 53/53 25-Jan-99 @ 08:08 PM - RE: Pulsar is realy good??
I am not sure, but I think you might be able to run two Pulsars together. First you pay $1000.00, then you realize you need MORE. Its called the previous investment trap. You keep buying more because you have invested so much you hate to lose your initial investment. The deeper in debt you go the more you feel obligated to stay in the game to try and recoop your losses. MIDI, Musical. Instrument. Debt. Indulgence.
Viewing all 53 messages - View by pages of 10: 1 2 3 4 5 6
There are 53 total messages for this topic
Reply to Thread
You need to register/login to use the forum.
Click here to Signup or Login !
[you'll be brought right back to this point after signing up]
Back to Forum
